Connect with us

Media

Don’t be hypocritical about Project Veritas just because they made a big mistake

Published

on

Dont be hypocritical about Project Veritas just because they made a big mistake

A lot of conservative publications are joining liberal ones in condemning James O’Keefe and Project Veritas for attempting to catch the Washington Post in the act of publishing false claims about embattled Senate candidate Roy Moore. Their failed sting operation was embarrassing. Perhaps worse than that (or better, depending on whether you support Moore), their attempt to discredit the publication and therefore the accusers whose story was told by WaPo has actually added more credibility to their stories.

They hurt Moore’s chances by attempting to help.

For background, let’s look at what Ben Shapiro said over at DailyWire:

James O’Keefe Tried To Sting WaPo With Fake Moore Sexual Assault Accuser. It Went Wildly Wrong.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/24015/james-okeefe-tried-sting-wapo-fake-moore-sexual-ben-shapiroIn a series of interviews over two weeks, the woman shared a dramatic story about an alleged sexual relationship with Moore in 1992 that led to an abortion when she was 15. During the interviews, she repeatedly pressed Post reporters to give their opinions on the effects that her claims could have on Moore’s candidacy if she went public.

The Post did not publish an article based on her unsubstantiated account. When Post reporters confronted her with inconsistencies in her story and an Internet posting that raised doubts about her motivations, she insisted that she was not working with any organization that targets journalists.

Shapiro’s is a reasoned response. Some that I’ve read have not been. They’re mad at O’Keefe, not for the attempt but rather because he failed at it. If he’d caught WaPo publishing a story that wasn’t true, these same conservative authors would be cheering him on. Now, they’re attacking him because he failed.

This type of operation is not new to O’Keefe. He’s been doing it for years ever since taking down ACORN. He won’t win every time. Therefore, it’s important to be consistent with how we treat his sting attempts. If you buy into this type of exposure journalism, you take the good with the bad. Accept that he tried and failed and move on. Encourage him in his failure just as you would when he succeeds. If you’re against this type of journalism, then oppose it regardless of the results. This isn’t sports. It’s politics. It’s a dirty game. Embrace the dirt or leave it alone. Don’t switch sides with the winds. That’s what actual politicians do.

Media

Megyn Kelly: Back With a Vengeance?

Published

on

I must confess a certain admiration for Megyn Kelly.  I watched her for years on Fox News, and always got the impression that she was tough and whip-smart—which isn’t such a surprise, because she’s both of those things.  A lawyer by training, Kelly has a reputation for being an excellent interviewer because like any good attorney, she prepares herself throughly beforehand.  And while her style may be off-putting to some—particularly die-hard Donald Trump fans who didn’t much care for the feud between them during the 2016 election—Kelly is, unquestionably, that rarest of specimens these days:  a competent journalist.

She is also, however, a victim of her own ambition, which is what led her to leave her post at the top of the Fox News heap for NBC News, where she had a disastrous—and brief—tenure as a host for the Today morning show.  I remember being baffled at the time as to how Kelly could ever think that Today, with its focus on features and soft news, would be a good fit for her hard news persona.  I also questioned who the intended audience for her show would be.  It certainly wouldn’t be die-hard Fox News fans, who viewed her departure as a betrayal—nor would it be your typical NBC viewer, most of whom didn’t care for Kelly because of her Fox News ties.  This quickly became apparent to NBC News brass as well, and after a few failed attempts at retooling the show the suits started looking for a way to dump Kelly.  In October of 2018, they found one—in the form of ginned-up outrage over some remarks Kelly made about wearing blackface for Halloween.

Of course, it’s rather ironic that NBC would be more sensitive to comments about blackface from one of its own anchors than it was to the actual wearing of blackface, as we would later find out when the entirety of the news media conspicuously moved on from Virginia Governor—and abortion loving Democrat—Ralph Northam, with his infamous yearbook photo, not to mention Canadian Prime Minister—and avowed leftist—Justin Trudeau, and his multiple dalliances with the shoe polish.  Still, NBC remained on the hook for Kelly’s three-year, $69 million contract, and had to pay out when they finally canceled her show, barely one year after it started.

Kelly has remained silent since then, perhaps as a condition of her departure from NBC—but that came to an end earlier this week, when she returned to Fox News to make her first television appearance since she got fired from Today.  Fittingly enough, she appeared with Tucker Carlson, whose Tucker Carlson Tonight replaced Kelly’s show The Kelly File in Fox’s 8pm time slot.  The interview went exceedingly well, so much that Carlson bumped a taped segment with Dennis Rodman to extend his talk with Kelly.  They covered a lot of interesting topics—not least the current turmoil that NBC News faces after the release of Ronan Farrow’s new book, Catch and Kill, which details how NBC execs allegedly helped cover up Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misdeeds in order to protect Matt Lauer, their own in-house predator.  It’s well worth a watch, if you’d like to check it out:

Kelly pulls her punches with NBC just a bit, stopping short of calling out her former employers explicitly—but she does say that NBC needs to hire an independent investigator who can get to the bottom of what really happened.  Personally, I’m not so sure how much good that will do—at this point, NBC News has pretty much wrecked its credibility already with its lopsided coverage of the Trump administration, a sickness that has also infected the rest of the news media at large—and whether an independent investigator who is getting paid by NBC would find the company at fault for anything really bad remains a tenuous possibility at best.  Still, it’s better than the fig leaf that NBC’s internal investigation has provided.  Given that Lauer’s proclivities with women were an open secret at the network, it stretches credulity to claim that NBC News executives were unaware.

As to Kelly’s future, she hints at her desire to get back in the game—and given the ratings that her appearance with Carlson pulled in, she may get that chance sooner than later.  I, for one, wouldn’t mind seeing it happen—if only to watch her go after NBC with a vengeance.  I’m guessing Kelly has a pretty good idea of where the bodies there are buried, and that she’s been waiting for some payback.

Ronan Farrow’s book may well be just the beginning of their problems.

Continue Reading

Democrats

How the left is redefining ‘quid pro quo’ to make it seem ominous

Published

on

How the left is redefining quid pro quo to make it seem ominous

Did you know you engage in “quid pro quo” every day? As you drive away from Starbucks with a latte in hand, you’re leaving the scene of your latest quid pro quo. When you tell your kids you will ground them if they don’t do their homework, you’re committing quid pro quo. When cover someone’s shift at work so they’ll work for you Saturday night, that’s blatant quid pro quo.

Literally, it’s Latin for “something for something.” It’s an exchange. You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. It’s part of literally every negotiation between any two countries ever. Without quid pro quo, there would be no treaties, no trade agreements, and wars would always go on indefinitely. It’s not a bad thing.

When something inappropriate is offered as part of quid pro quo dealings, that’s when politicians get into trouble. Accepting gifts from lobbyists in exchange for favorable votes is an example of illegal quid pro quo. Or, as House Democrats are trying to prove, if a President holds back aid to a foreign government unless they investigate a political foe so dirt can be found on them for an upcoming election, that is bad quid pro quo.

Yesterday, acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney famously told the press to “get over it” when it comes to quid pro quo. His words were careless, not because they weren’t true but because in the current political atmosphere, his acknowledgement there was quid pro quo over the ongoing 2016 election corruption investigation muddies the waters. Democrats and the media have painted the common action of quid pro quo between two governments as negative by conflating their impeachment inquiry topic – Ukraine investigating the Bidens – with the other aspect of the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky, the CrowdStrike’s involvement with the DNC hack in 2016.

The first is truly impeachable. The second is part of everyday business between two countries. Mulvaney admitted to the second, which is neither illegal nor impeachable. But the media pounced by conflating the two.

Democrats and mainstream media are trying to redefine quid pro quo as a negative thing worthy of impeachment. They’re doing this by confusing the language behind the action with the topic of the impeachment inquiry. Unfortunately, they’re doing this to an American public that is easy to confuse and easier to distract.

We’re witnessing a disingenuous attempt to make Americans believe quid pro quo in and of itself is bad. This is ludicrous, or course, but they’ll do or say anything to make President Trump look bad.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Media

Mainstream media’s anti-Trump bias has no room left to escalate

Published

on

Mainstream medias anti-Trump bias has no room left to escalate

There was a plan put in place shortly after President Trump won his election in 2016. Some believe it was never officially discussed, but instead morphed naturally through observations, winks, and nods. The more conspiracy-theory-minded crowd believes there were conversations and meetings held following the election between leaders of media, both in the mainstream and in big tech. Few believe it’s a coincidence that every mainstream media outlet other than Rupert Murdoch’s holdings is so adamantly anti-Trump by random chance. It’s coordinated, whether formally or as a result of media leaders seeing others walking in the same direction.

It’s working to some extent. The constant barrage of anti-Trump reporting had a huge impact on the 2018 election. It’s also affecting polls as a President with so many clear economic successes under his belt struggles to break 50% approval. But there’s a problem the media either didn’t foresee or refused to accept. Americans have grown fatigued by all of the unabashed hatred towards the President. They’re no longer shocked nor swayed by any given day’s batch of reports that the President is terrible for whatever new reason they’re peddling.

What’s worse for the media’s narrative is their reporting isn’t matching what people are seeing in their lives. Based solely on media reports, the world is ending, everyone’s starving, hillbilly gunmen with AR-15s are roaming the streets, women are dying in alleys because they’re being denied healthcare, and the LBGTQ community is under constant attack. The reality is more Americans are working than ever before, mass shootings are not common, women have unprecedented access to real healthcare, and the LGBTQ community is given superior status over most other Americans.

Of course, whether or not the world is ending soon is still up for debate. We’ll know more next November.

This anti-Trump narrative has been in progress since the day he was elected. Technically, it was happening before he was elected, but at that point it wasn’t quite as out in the open as after the election. They assumed Hillary Clinton would win, so they kept their rhetoric restrained. When she lost, they assumed they hadn’t done enough to help her. They vowed they’d help expedite President Trump’s removal from office, but they did so with the belief that he wouldn’t make it to the end of his first term. This is why they put all of their eggs in Robert Mueller’s basket. When that failed, they realized (for the first time, mind you) there was a chance President Trump would actually survive until election day.

That’s when everything changed. They realized they couldn’t count on Democrats, Robert Mueller, or missteps by the President to get him out of office, so they determined their best course of action was to assume he needed to be stopped at the ballot box while still hoping for impeachment or implosion. That’s where we are today. It’s why the bias has turned from giddily reporting his presidential demise to outright propaganda ahead of the election. CNN, NY Times, MSNBC, Washington Post, and all of the other media “influencers” on the left have made a conscious (and possibly coordinated) decision to plaster wall-to-wall coverage of anything that can be spun in a negative light against the President.

Now, they’ve peaked. They literally have no more room available for even more anti-Trump propaganda because that’s essentially all they report. Sure, they’ll work in the regular round of stories; they still have bills to pay so they need to report regular news as well. But the editorial strategy across the board is “stop Trump at all costs.”

This is a huge problem for them and the Democrats because of the aforementioned fatigue. Those who already hate the President aren’t going to be driven to fight him harder as a result of these reports. In fact, some are even disgusted by it, including CNN whistleblower Cary Poarch who joined the network as a Bernie Sanders supporting Democrat. The President’s avid supporters haven’t believed a word reported by mainstream media since 2016. That leaves those in the middle, whether that’s skeptical Republicans, open-minded Independents, or Democrats who are concerned about the policies being spouted by their party. How are they receiving the incessant negative reporting?

It’s within this group that mainstream media blew it. They’ve gone into fully unhinged mode way too early to properly manipulate those who are still making up their minds. They may poll or Tweet against the President now, but there’s an inherent sympathy among humans to not like it when someone is ganged up on as the media has been ganging up on President Trump. If the media had been honest (okay, MORE honest than they are now) about the President, then turned negative in the month or two leading up to the election, they probably could have swayed voters who are on the fence. By going full-blown anti-Trump so soon, they’re setting themselves up to push open-minded people towards Trump as the fatigue wears on them.

There’s no room for the media to get more negative. They’ve unleashed their ultimate strategy a year too soon.

There’s still a growing threat, though. Big tech is smarter than mainstream media. They understand the need to maintain an illusion of neutrality until closer to the election. The moves they’re making are more subtle, such as search engines highlighting anti-Trump stories in search results or algorithms quietly amplifying anti-Trump rhetoric. They’re a much bigger concern than mainstream media’s blustering reports. I’ll tackle the threat of biased big tech in the near future.

Mainstream media still has great power over the way people think, which is why it’s imperative that patriots support conservative outlets like NOQ Report. We are primarily crowdfunded and rely on donations to get the truth to the masses. The truth has much more power over elections when more people are exposed to it, which is why we regularly ask for your help.

The media has turned their anti-Trump propaganda up to 11. Over time, it will have the opposite effect as more people realize the reporting is biased and untrustworthy. We must continue bringing out the truth through election day and beyond.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending